Ukraine signs up to buy 100 French fighter jets

Which is a GE F414 with a Volvo sticker on it. All the parts are made in the USA and assembled in Sweden.

Which is just a Swedish made F404.

usually the simplest answer is the correct one

I highly expect he’s right. France has been extremely on the front foot hawking their Rafales to the weird and whacky corners of the world with very healthy incentives (don’t call them bribes) to make them competitive. It’ll be the same here

Says the man who has offered no evidence to back up his argument that this is a direct insult to Britain. We don’t even know if an option to buy Eurofighters was even practical in the present circumstances. We refused Typhoons when he asked for them previously, meanwhile France supplied Mirage 2000s. Let’s get the actual facts before showing insults around, this Country is fighting for its survival it has to get the weapons it practically can, geez we can’t even decide to buy Typhoons to keep our own production lines going, other participants are building new ones for their own use by comparison. I very much doubt we were especially keen to further invest in increasing our production lines to cope with profitable Turkish production with additional possibly less than profitable Ukraine production but maybe I’m being cynical on that one. Fact is Typhoon is expensive and Ukraine would get less of them from funds that will likely take them 50 years to rebalance post war. We have to be realistic as does Ukraine, if we had a more productive defence industry I’m sure they would buy almost everything we could produce but truth is we barely build anything we can sell them NEW other than the missiles we are supplying. Reflects badly on us.

lol pot calling the kettle black. i think Macron (who i am not particularly a fan of BTW) is boy scout compared to Boris, etc… having lived in UK and France, I can tell you that the Brits do more chest puffing. you would be surprised how little the UK is a topic of discussion in french society or news because there are more important local things in french people’s mind (could be that french are so self centered they are oblivious to the rest :), whereas in the Uk it is obsessive (not just post brexit) when it comes to France. Just look at a large part of the UK press where it has to bitch about France on a quasi daily basis, i guess it must increase sales.
You can be skeptical all you want, but France is quite conservative in what it announces in defense matters, sure Macron likes to bloviate about grandiose things like universal values, etc.. (does anyone listen?) but let me illustrate my first point , when France announced SCALP they only advertised 250km range whereas the UK announced 500km for Storm Shadow – PS it’s the same missile.

Neither of you mentioned cost, I have come up with difference numbers so I won’t bother putting them up but the consensus seems to be the Rafale is cheaper than the Typhoon Tranche 4, so it gives it some weight alongside it’s capabilities it seems.
Hell maybe the UK should follow Ukraines example and buy some instead of wasting money on Typhoons if thats the case

My concerns with this analysis is that it builds off of sources that do a poor job of actually comparing the aircraft, which is an issue intrinsic to asking AI to make these kinds of comparisons in and of itself. Grok (this is the Twitter one, right?) also fails to understand the differing roles of the aircraft, and the efficacy of the aircraft at those roles.

For example, Grok very clearly fails to account for the significant difference in radar performance between the two jets. The Captor-E AESA Mk0 is a significantly larger array than the RBE2-AA, with the former having more than 1000 T/R modules compared to the 800 of the latter – this is mainly due to limitations in the physical space available inside the nose of the Rafale. This size restriction will limit the competitiveness of the Rafale, even with the newer RBE2-XG, that’s supposedly on the way (though with almost a decade of delays). The Rafale also has nothing comparable to pivot or swash-plate mounting system found on the CAPTOR-E AESA Mk1 and Mk2 (ECRS), which will equip British Typhoons and be significantly more capable that the Mk0 and y extension, the RBE2-AA. This is known to give the Typhoon a 50% wider field of view for the radar compared to fixed plate systems like the RBE2-AA, which significantly improves situational awareness, missile support capability and survivability.

Similarly, claiming that the Spectra is ‘vastly superior’ is just impossible to verify. The Praetorian DASS is also a great system, and similarly well-regarded. Spectra is likely better, but vastly superior is a little hard to judge.

This leads onto a greater issue with the comparison here. The advantages possessed by the Typhoon are mostly physically verifiable. Hard statistics like maximum altitude, speed, agility, range, capacity, radar size are attributes that can be confirmed – we know the Typhoon is more capable in these fields because these a concrete stats with measurable attributes. On the other hand, things like EW capability, sensor fusion, pilot workload and detectability are much more nebulous and hard to find verifiable statistics about. For example, with regards to sensor fusion, how can such a capability be measured? Systems like Grok rely on articles that in turn rely on industry rumour to measure these systems, because there’s little to no public data on even the base capabilities of these systems.

What complicates this even more is that several of those nebulous features are also found on the Typhoon, which, much like the radar, Grok handily leaves out.

– The Typhoon (as mentioned above) does operate a capable EW system, and is set to receive another system in German service that complements the DASS and allows the Typhoon to operate in a role similar to a Growler. This is the Arexis system, from Saab.
– The Typhoon does actually have a larger meaningful air-to-air combat load compared to the Rafale. It can carry significantly more of the much longer-ranged Meteor or AMRAAM-D (with a current maximum of eight Meteors compared to the Rafale’s 4). Though the Rafale would also carry another 4 of the MICA series alongside that, given your focus on modern, 2030s BVR combat, the Typhoon definitely takes the win there, especially considering there are also proposals to up that load to 10 Meteors, and in some wild suggestions, 14 Meteors. So again, it entirely depends on what you want your aircraft to do.
– I’ve already mentioned the upcoming LAD and Striker II systems that will aid Typhoon pilots on the newest jets, but to reiterate, they’ll be a massive boon to situational awareness and pilot workload.
– The Typhoon also includes low-observable features, such as S-ducts, RAM, shaping, et cetera. Plus, there is zero data on how well either aircraft shapes up in that regard. I think there’s also a tendency with the Rafale to assume from the way it looks that it might be stealthy in some way, which feeds into this misinterpretation. The FSO-IR is probably great, but again, the Typhoon carries the Pirate, which is similar.

All in all, though your comment (or Grok) presents this as the Typhoon being optimised for BVR combat of the 70s and 80s, I would disagree. The Typhoon has all the technology it needs to excel in the BVR game in the modern day, with the caveats of struggling against systems like the S-400, S-500 and the Felon, all of which would also pose a major threat to the Rafale. The critical pieces of tech for the BVR mission, the radar and the missiles, are quantifiably superior or the same as those found in the Rafale. But on the other hand, the Rafale is a better multi-role platform.

As I said above, it’s very difficult to say with any surety which is better, because they fill very different niches. If you want to dominate the BVR game, and can’t pick up the F-35A, the Typhoon is your choice. If you want a competent, well-rounded force on a restricted budget and can only pick one type of aircraft, take the Rafale.

As a final aside, my two cents would be that nations like the UK, Germany and Saudi Arabia, who are increasingly looking to establish mixed fleets of both the F-35 and Typhoon, are on a much better capability track compared to those (like India and France) relying on the Rafale alone into the future. The Typhoon and the F-35 just complement each other.
–

Mixed bunch of answers, thats fine. Let’s hope the Tempest can match the F35 in the future or at least the new jet the Frogs and Krauts are working on

‘lol Rafale can do only 80% of what Typhoon. yet Typhoon has no real EW capability (other than warning system and dispensing chaff/flares), cannot fire as many types of weapons’

That’s very clearly not what I said. I said ‘the Rafale can do everything the Typhoon can do, to about 80% of the efficacy of the Typhoon, whilst being significantly cheaper.’. That’s a fair assessment. The areas that the Rafale absolutely exceeds the Typhoon are in strike capabilities and potentially EW capabilities, but the latter is so hard to judge the efficacy of its tough to accurately assess as industrial outsiders.

As to your ‘types of weapons’ claim, it’s bogus. The Typhoon can carry 13 different types of weapons, compared to the Rafale’s 11. different types. The Rafale can carry more categories of weapons, including anti-ship and nuclear-capable missiles. However, the latter is useless to anyone outside of France and the former is set to change, with the anti-ship munitions such as the Marte-ER expected for the Typhoon. The only way the Rafale exceeds numerically is if you count every Paveway variant individually, which is a little bit of statistical trickery.

‘swash plate mounting is not required for AESA, since each beam can be individually directed. swash plate adds unnecessary weight and volume, as well as more maintenance – it is of little use in reality which is why no one else has bothered with it.’

It also adds a significant improvement in actual capability. Think of a traditional AESA as being able to move your eyes, but having your head restrained, compared to the swash-plate system as being able to move both your eyes and your head at the same time. The latter significantly, by more the 50%, increases your field of view. The reason it’s not been pursued (and the reason the it took so long) is because it’s expensive. I’m actually surprised the RAF were able to push it through, but now it’s here, they have a fair claim to saying that it could be the most capable fighter radar available.

‘speeds, altitude, etc… are all constructor marketing brochure blah blah. for instance Mach is not a fixed speed, it fluctuates greatly based on temp, altitude etc….so going mach 2 at sea level is faster than mach 2 at 60k feet, so a mach figure by itself is meaningless. these may serve as talking points for internet but they don’t translate in real world operations, because aerodynamic, weapons loadouts, fuel, etc… have big impacts on real performance. Rafale with 3 drop tanks, and 6 Hammer is not going to fly supersonic, neither is Typhoon BTW.. Rafale is able to supercruise at mach1.4 with 6 AA missiles while Typhoon tops out at mach 1.2 with 6 AA missiles like it did in Singapoure evaluation. just to say announced engine power specs are not the only thing that matters.’

Brother, you are fighting shadows here. I never claimed half of this stuff. Of course Mach number is variable. That caveat applies to both fighters. I did not claim that a Typhoon with three drop tanks and six guided bombs would be flying supersonic, either.

What even more baffling is that you start by telling me Mach numbers are meaningless, and then proceed to hand me a pair of Mach numbers with the only qualification being ‘six AA missiles’. Was that six MICAs, or six ASRAAMs? Was it six Meteors? Was it a mixed loadout, and in that case what was the mix? If you’re going to argue about context, please provide some for your own claims.

You also mention the Singaporean evaluation. I’m not sure how far you’ve actually delved into that particular shitshow, but I think its important to remember that the Typhoon was actually the preferred option by the RSAF from a capability standpoint, with its radar, kinematics and low-observability all contributing to the jet actually being seen as the more capable option over the Rafale and the Eagle. If sources (I’m using Flight Global’s 2005 account) from the time can be trusted, it’s actually suggested that during the evaluation, neither the Rafale nor the Eagle were able to supercruise with a comparable load to that of the Typhoon. The reasons the Typhoon lost out were BAE’s constant hamstringing of the demonstrated performance and the companies inability to guarantee a delivery date within Singaporean expectations.

‘what greater capacity does Typhoon have with Meteor that Rafale lacks? in fact it is the contrary since Rafale has had an operational AESA since 2013 and Meteor was the whole point of the F3R upgrade package in 2018. European Typhoons are still waiting for their first AESA so clearly not using Meteor to its potential.’

This is an easy one, not sure why you’re challenging this point. The Typhoon can carry significantly more Meteors than the Rafale can. That’s my point about capacity.

‘and then this pretentious bit about Typhoon is for wealthy in implying Rafale is the the poor man’s solution is just pure twisted BS. India, Qatar and UAE are hardly countries without means. Rafale is doing better on export because it is a better solution, plain and simple. in fact every time Rafale has competed with Typhoon for mulitary contracts it has ranked higher in the test evaluation than Typhoon in air to air and in air to ground missions, , like in Netherlands, Singapour, S. Korea Switzerland, etc… this is known because reports were made available to public, yes it was over a decade, but since then The Rafale has had even more upgrades than Typhoon. and this upgrade path is still ongoing for many years to come. Currently Rafale F4.2 standard is coming into service in 2026, followed by F5 2030 which includes some major upgrades’

You mention that the Typhoon frequently ranks lower in procurement decisions. I would urge you to actually consider why that is. Frequently, as in the case of Singapore, it’s not a question of capability, but of cost and deliverability. The cost of the Typhoon is far too high for the capability you get from it, as is the cost to maintain it. The Rafale is still expensive, but it is a more manageable price. That is a fair and valid criticism of the Typhoon – it’s asking for far too much money compared to what it offers in return.

You’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said again. I said that the Typhoon is usually purchased by nations capable of operating multi-fighter fleets – in several of those fleets, the Rafale also makes an appearance.

This is the crux of my argument, and something I go into a little more in my second comment. The Rafale is a great aircraft, and definitely, quantifiably superior to the Typhoon in the strike role, and by extension, as a multi-role aircraft. The Typhoon remains better in the high-end air warfare role that it was designed to do. This, combined with its cheaper price and maintenance, means that for nations that don’t have the ability to operate large mixed fleets, the Rafale is a great choice, and performs well, unless weighed down by incompetence.

You mention a whole host of upgrades – the Typhoon will receive several equivalent upgrades in the timeframe going forward:
– LAD and Striker II
– Offensive EW system from Saab
– Both STRATUS missiles
– Loyal wingman drones from the UK, Germany and Italy

But to reiterate, the Typhoon and Rafale are two different jets, with different design priorities, that have seen their missions sets grow closer together since their ETS.

NO contest ^.^